Giving Thoughthttps://givingthought.org
Looking at the key issues affecting civil society, philanthropy, social investment and the use of new technologies for social good.Tue, 21 Nov 2017 15:18:18 +0000enhourly1http://wordpress.com/https://secure.gravatar.com/blavatar/e1c1cbdd64b8e1cd6101c52a38db21e1?s=96&d=https%3A%2F%2Fs2.wp.com%2Fi%2Fbuttonw-com.pngGiving Thoughthttps://givingthought.org
We have movedhttps://givingthought.org/2017/08/24/we-have-moved/
https://givingthought.org/2017/08/24/we-have-moved/#respondThu, 24 Aug 2017 13:56:15 +0000http://givingthought.org/?p=2400]]>
The Giving Thought blog is now part of the Giving Thought Think Tank, at Charities Aid Foundation. Read our latest posts and publications at www.cafonline.org/about-us/blog-home/giving-thought

]]>https://givingthought.org/2017/08/24/we-have-moved/feed/0thegivingthoughtgiving thought think tank on CAFonlineFuture Imperfect: 10 new problems that technology will create and charities will have to deal withhttps://givingthought.org/2017/04/13/future-imperfect-10-new-problems-that-technology-will-create-and-charities-will-have-to-deal-with/
https://givingthought.org/2017/04/13/future-imperfect-10-new-problems-that-technology-will-create-and-charities-will-have-to-deal-with/#respondThu, 13 Apr 2017 08:08:55 +0000http://givingthought.org/?p=2285]]>Future Imperfect: 10 new problems that technology will create and charities will have to deal with]]>https://givingthought.org/2017/04/13/future-imperfect-10-new-problems-that-technology-will-create-and-charities-will-have-to-deal-with/feed/0Tech problemthegivingthoughtLaudable: The Lords Select Committee on Charities and Beyondhttps://givingthought.org/2017/03/27/laudable-the-lords-select-committee-on-charities-and-beyond/
https://givingthought.org/2017/03/27/laudable-the-lords-select-committee-on-charities-and-beyond/#respondMon, 27 Mar 2017 14:23:37 +0000http://givingthought.org/?p=2274]]>Over the weekend, the Lords Select Committee on Charities published its final report, following a year’s activity looking into the current state of the charity sector in the UK, and how it can be improved.

The Committee’s recommendations – 42 in total – span the breadth of the entire sector, and there is much in the report that merits praise. Particularly welcome are proposals to generate greater trust in charity governance, break down barriers preventing smaller charities from delivering public services, and to diversify and train trustee boards to ensure that trustees are more representative of society and better equipped to deal with the challenges that they face.

It is also pleasing to see that the Committee explicitly recognises and supports the vital role that charity advocacy plays in a vibrant civil society, and encourages the adoption of Lord Hodgson’s report on the impact of the Lobbying Act in full. The Committee also warns that the Government’s interest in social impact bonds should not be to the detriment of innovation elsewhere, and –in the week that the Prime Minister is set to trigger Article 50 – raises concerns about the potential impact Brexit could have on the sector.

And in the year that sees the 30th anniversary of the introduction of payroll giving, it is pleasing to see the Committee calling for businesses and government to work together to encourage greater participation. This, combined with encouraging companies to give employees time off for charitable activity – something that was in the Conservative Party’s manifesto at the election – could do a great deal to ensure that Britain’s businesses continue to make an important social commitment.

However, as welcome as this report is, the challenges that charities face go far beyond the scope of the Committee’s remit. It’s important that policymakers are able to explore the impact that technological, political and social transformations are having on the wider world and what that means for charities. That means not just taking stock of where charities are now, but providing an ambitious vision of the role that charities can play in the future, putting in place the structures and policies now needed to unleash the potential of Britain’s civil society.

Technologically, many charities have struggled to keep pace with the rapid changes in the digital world. Whilst charities have increased their digital presence and engagement, they have not yet begun to explore the full scope of the opportunities and challenges presented by new technologies such as blockchain, artificial intelligence and virtual reality; which are going to shape all our lives in the near future and may transform the relationship between people and causes.

Socially, the growing interconnectivity of the world is also changing the role of charities in society. People are giving to charities in different ways and via different methods, and charities have a real challenge to insert themselves into the consciousness of younger audiences in particular to ensure that there is an understanding of their role in generating change and that they can be part of the big conversations about social good.

And politically, there is no doubt that there is an integral role for charities to play in helping to deliver the Prime Minister’s ‘Shared Society,’ a concept that currently remains low on content. The growing focus on devolution and cities offers potential for further exploration include how to reinvigorate civic identity and a sense of place by resurrecting the role that philanthropy played in developing many of Britain’s great cities. Further afield, conversations about Britain’s place in the world must include the role that our thriving network of international charities can play in developing and delivering soft power.

In short, the work of the Committee and their report is to be praised, and their recommendations – if acted on – would help to further develop trust in charities. We await the Government’s response with interest, confident that they will engage constructively on ideas that have cross-party support from such a well-informed and respected panel.

However, at a time of such global turbulence and changes across society, charities cannot afford to retreat to the safety of ‘charity issues.’ Rather than being left on the side-lines, charities need to be at the heart of conversations, understanding and embracing the broad changes taking place, and recognising their potential and the ways in which they can help deliver on them. At CAF, we’ll be aiming to take a lead on those issues, acting now to place charities ahead of the curve and invaluable to the future of society.

Steve Clapperton

]]>https://givingthought.org/2017/03/27/laudable-the-lords-select-committee-on-charities-and-beyond/feed/0HOLthegivingthoughtIs it time for the charity sector to get rowdy about Brexit?https://givingthought.org/2017/03/14/is-it-time-for-the-charity-sector-to-get-rowdy-about-brexit/
https://givingthought.org/2017/03/14/is-it-time-for-the-charity-sector-to-get-rowdy-about-brexit/#respondTue, 14 Mar 2017 14:24:40 +0000http://givingthought.org/?p=2268]]>Is it time for the charity sector to get rowdy about Brexit?]]>https://givingthought.org/2017/03/14/is-it-time-for-the-charity-sector-to-get-rowdy-about-brexit/feed/0Brexit-negotiations-732989thegivingthought2017 Budget – Our take on what it means for charitieshttps://givingthought.org/2017/03/08/2017-budget-our-take-on-what-it-means-for-charities/
https://givingthought.org/2017/03/08/2017-budget-our-take-on-what-it-means-for-charities/#respondWed, 08 Mar 2017 14:57:38 +0000http://givingthought.org/?p=2261]]>2017 Budget – Our take on what it means for charities]]>https://givingthought.org/2017/03/08/2017-budget-our-take-on-what-it-means-for-charities/feed/02017 budget red bookthegivingthought11 More Great Books about Philanthropyhttps://givingthought.org/2017/03/02/11-more-great-books-about-philanthropy/
https://givingthought.org/2017/03/02/11-more-great-books-about-philanthropy/#respondThu, 02 Mar 2017 14:14:59 +0000http://givingthought.org/?p=2234]]>It is World Book Day again, so I thought I would do a follow-up to a blog I did last year on “The 11 Best Books on the History of Philanthropy“. Partly because that post proved to be quite popular, and also because I have come across a few more great philanthropy books recently that I’m keen to share with any like-minded readers.

My philanthropy library, updated for 2017.

This time I have broadened my criteria out a bit. I’m still focusing on books about the idea of philanthropy, as opposed to the details of its practice, but this time I’m including a few books that come from a philosophical or scientific point of view as well as well as a historical one.

Right then, in no particular order here are my next top 11 books on philanthropy:

1) Philanthropy in Democratic Societies

by Rob Reich, Chiara Cordelli & Lucy Bernholz (eds.)

This is THE best book to date on the philosophy and political theory of philanthropy. A collection of chapters by many of the best-known names in philanthropy scholarship covers a range of fascinating topics, including the role of philanthropy and foundations within a democracy, the historical roots of the distinction between for-profit and not-for-profit and whether donor choice needs to be curbed in order to make philanthropy effective. A very strong recommendation.

2) Giving Well: The ethics of philanthropy

by Patricia Illingworth, Thomas Pogge & Leif Weinar (eds)

This is the other really good book on the philosophy of philanthropy. This one focuses on ethical questions rather than political theory ones, including whether there is an obligation to help those less fortunate than ourselves and whether the inherent power dynamic in philanthropy creates problems. The collection contains Peter Singer’s famous paper “What Should a Billionaire Give – And What Should You?” which has been a major influence on the Effective Altruism movement. It also contains Rob Reich’s paper “Towards a Political Theory of Philanthropy”, which is (to my mind) the best analysis of the justification for tax relief on donations, and one that I have leant heavily on in my own work.

3) The Philanthropy Reader

by Michael Moody and Beth Breeze (eds)

In some ways this one is a bit of a cheat for this list, as it is actually a collection of carefully-chosen readings about various aspects of philanthropy taken from lots of other sources. However, it’s my list, so I’ll do what I like! And as a resource to dip into for anyone interested in many of the key questions of philanthropy (e.g. its role in democracy, the influence of religion, whether there is a moral imperative to give, how philanthropy can be made more “effective” etc.) it is absolutely invaluable.

4) Giving Well, Doing Good: Readings for thoughtful philanthropists

by Amy A. Kass (ed.)

As the subtitle would suggest, this is a collection of readings about philanthropy along much the same lines as the Moody and Breeze book listed at number 3. However, there is very little crossover between the two books, and this one casts the net a bit wider in looking for readings that are not directly about philanthropy, but have clear relevance to some of the key questions that need to be addressed. A combination of this and the collection listed above would make a pretty good mini-library for anyone who just wants to have some good readings about all the various aspects of philanthropy to call on.

5) Civil Society, Philanthropy and the Fate of the Commons

by Bruce R. Sievers

This book takes a look at the role that philanthropy plays in maintaining a healthy civil society, and analyses what this tells us about the way in which philanthropy can best work within a liberal democracy. It is an interesting book in its own right, charting the historical development of the notion of civil society and tackling some of the thorny questions about the political theory of philanthropy, but it also seems particularly relevant at the moment given the strain being put on the notion of liberal democracy following the seismic political and cultural events of last year. It is prescient too, as it makes a case for the importance of philanthropic support for a free press, which is something we are now seeing happen in response to the threat of misinformation and “fake news” (as I have explored elsewhere).

6) Charity Law and the Liberal State

by Matthew Harding

This is a must-read for anyone interested in the question of what constitutes an acceptable charitable purpose and why; the justification for tax breaks on donations; or the issue of whether charities should be allowed to engage in ‘political’ campaigning. The book is not entirely neutral in its viewpoint, as it deliberately takes a liberal viewpoint centering on the notion of autonomy (which leans heavily on the work of Joseph Raz), but its examination of some of the philosophical questions of charity law and what they tell us about the state’s role in defining the boundaries of philanthropy and civil society are second to none. I would caution that this one should probably be classed as a ‘more challenging read’ – not because it is not well-written, but because it does address conceptual questions of significant depth which require some fairly close reading to get to grips with. It is definitely worth it, though.

7) Does Altruism Exist?

by David Sloan Wilson

This one is a bit different from the other books I have recommended so far: it is a fairly short, popular science book which looks at what various areas of science (including evolutionary biology, psychology and economics) have to say about the notion of altruism. That means that it is not specifically about philanthropy per se, but it is still a fascinating introduction to the way in which the notion of altruism (which is obviously highly relevant to philanthropy) has posed fairly fundamental challenges to many areas of scientific theory.

8) The Science of Giving: Experimental approaches to the study of charity

by Daniel M. Oppenheimer and Christopher Y. Olivola

If you had your appetite for a scientific perspective on philanthropy whetted by number 6, then this is the book for you. It is a collection of academic papers (largely from economics) looking at various aspects of giving behaviour, including whether making donations public encourages people to give more, whether getting people to make commitments prior to donation is an effective way of encouraging more giving, and whether people are more likely to give if there is an “identifiable victim”. You might find yourself a bit lost in a few places where the authors delve into game theoretic equations, but it is isn’t too difficult to get the general gist of all the papers and there are some very interesting results that could give us valuable insights into charitable giving and fundraising.

9)Women and Philanthropy in 19th Century England

by F. K. Prochaska

Right, we’re back on history now. This book takes a look at a fairly specific theme, as its name suggests, but it is a fascinating one that has wider implications for philanthropy and also for questions of equality and the role of women within society. Philanthropy was a vital outlet for women at a time when most avenues for expressing their personal agency (such as voting) were closed to them, and this book strongly makes the case that women were the primary driving force behind the ‘golden age’ of Victorian philanthropy.

10) Philanthropy in America: A History

by Oliver Zunz

This is a cracking book by a top-flight historian, looking at the history of philanthropy in the USA. Zunz details the rise of big-money philanthropy in the form of men like Rockefeller and Carnegie, and their modern-day equivalents like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. He also highlights the concurrent development of mass-market giving, which drive so much if the US’s rich culture of philanthropy. He also takes a fascinating look at the role that philanthropy played in the culture wars of the 1950s and 60s, and the way in which it enabled the export of American ideals abroad. Once again, this is a marvellous book in its own right, but also particularly worth reading at the current time when America’s future is so uncertain and it is possible that US internationalism is going to become a thing of the past.

11) Charity Rediscovered: A study of philanthropic effort in Nineteenth Century Liverpool

by Margaret Simey

A bit of a personal choice this one: obviously I am interested in the history of philanthropy, but I also moved to Liverpool last year so to find this wonderful book about the development of philanthropy in the city and the role that it played in Liverpool’s enormous growth in the Victorian era was a real treat. But it won’t just be of interest to people in Liverpool, I hasten to add! Whilst the book is focused on this city specifically, Liverpool also acts as a lens through which the author charts wider developments in Victorian philanthropy, so it definitely sits comfortably alongside the other historical volumes on this topic. I only wish I had come across it when I was writing my book, as I would definitely have quoted it liberally!

So that’s this year’s list. I hope at least some of you are motivated to track down any of these books that sound of interest. Let me know if you do, and what you think of them, as there is a unique satisfaction to giving a good book recommendation! Also, do let me know if you know of any philanthropy gems that I have missed.

Rhodri Davies

]]>https://givingthought.org/2017/03/02/11-more-great-books-about-philanthropy/feed/0philanthropy-library-2017thegivingthoughtphilanthropy-library-2017philanthropy-in-democratic-societiesgiving-wellthe-philanthropy-readergiving-well-doing-goodSievers Jacket 3.inddcharity-law-and-the-liberal-statedoes-altruism-existthe-science-of-givingwomen-and-philanthropyphilanthropy-in-americacharity-rediscoveredClosing Space or Open Season? What President Trump’s latest move means for the future of civil society campaigninghttps://givingthought.org/2017/02/23/closing-space-or-open-season-what-president-trumps-latest-move-means-for-the-future-of-civil-society-campaigning/
https://givingthought.org/2017/02/23/closing-space-or-open-season-what-president-trumps-latest-move-means-for-the-future-of-civil-society-campaigning/#respondThu, 23 Feb 2017 15:07:21 +0000http://givingthought.org/?p=2209]]>A recent announcement by US President Donald Trump has caused a great deal of concern in the non-profit sector and once again brought the issue of charities getting involved in politics right back into the spotlight. This has become a thorny issue around the world in recent years, including here in the UK (as detailed in a recent CAF Giving Thought paper), so it is worth looking at the details of this story and what they tell us about the challenges of charities operating in the political arena.

The Johnson Amendment

You might well have missed the story itself in amongst the deluge of news coming out of the White House at the moment, so here it is in a nutshell. At this year’s National Prayer Breakfast, President Trump announced that he was going to “get rid of and totally destroy” a thing called the Johnson Amendment. This is a fairly obscure amendment to the US tax code put forward by then-senator Lyndon Johnson in 1954, which prohibits tax-exempt organizations (known as 501c(3) organizations) from taking part in political campaigns for or against a candidate for elected public office.

Some religious groups have been opposed to the Johnson Amendment for a long time, arguing that it is a violation of their right to free speech, and have been campaigning for it to be repealed. This has included a campaign of orchestrated disobedience by a group called the Alliance Defending Freedom, who organise an annual “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” on which they encourage preachers to give openly political sermons in church. It is clear that Trump’s aim in repealing the amendment is to appease these religious groups, and in particular the evangelical organisations that have formed such a powerful part of his base. He said when announcing the new policy that the purpose was “to allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution.”

Why are charities worried?

The reason this is extremely pertinent for charities in the US is that the Johnson Amendment does not just apply to churches, but to all tax-exempt 501c(3) organisations, and that includes all public charities.

As already highlighted, if the Johnson Amendment is repealed then a lot of the political money flowing through 501c(4)s will start being channelled through 501c(3)s instead, because they have the added benefit of enabling tax deductions on donations. Charities and not-for-profits are extremely worried about what this would do to public trust, because if some 501c(3) organisation become overtly aligned with political parties, people will just assume that all tax-exempt organisations (including charities) are partisan.

Nonpartisanship is vital to the work of charitable nonprofits. It enables organizations to address community challenges, and invites the problem-solving skills of all residents, without the distractions of party labels and the caustic partisanship that is bedeviling our country.

“Nonprofits are already free to exercise their First Amendment rights to advocate for their missions. Allowing political operatives to push for endorsements would put nonprofits in a position where they become known as Democratic charities or Republican charities and put missions at risk.

“Furthermore, those who donate to nonprofits want those contributions to go toward advancing the mission, not toward advancing the careers of politicians or lining the pockets of political consultants. Getting involved in supporting or opposing candidates will have a chilling effect on contributions on which many nonprofits rely.”

Perhaps the most ridiculous thing about this whole situation is that is not even clear that there is really a problem to be addressed. Many people have pointed out that whilst the law technically prohibits tax-exempt organisations from political campaigning, in reality those that want to (primarily religious groups) have been able to do so with relative impunity for years. The Washington Post reported that of the more than 2,000 clergy who had taken part in “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” since 2008, and deliberately violated the Johnson Amendment, only one had been audited by the IRS and none had been punished.

If that is the case, then the repeal of the amendment only really makes sense if the opening up of 501c(3)s as a channel for political donations is the actual intention, rather than just an unintended consequence. But either way, it is likely to be charities that suffer as a result of the corrosive effect that this will have on public trust.

Too much freedom: as bad as too little?

Whilst the details of this story are very much specific to the US, it does raise many issues that should resonate more widely. The first thing to note is that the proposal to repeal the Johnson Amendment, and thereby remove restrictions on not-for-profit organisations engaging in political campaigning, run almost directly counter to the prevailing global trend. Many governments are introducing ever more restrictions on campaigning in a bid to curb the ability of civil society organisations to act as a critical voice, rather than opening up the space for them to engage in politics.

I don’t think for a moment that this is going to prompt a reversal of the “closing space for civil society” phenomenon – rather, I think it illustrates the fact that civil society organisations face threats from two directions when it comes to their right to campaign. In most cases, the primary threat comes from governments seeking to tighten restrictions on campaigning and thereby limit the ability of CSOs to engage in legitimate advocacy work. However, the situation in the US shows that there can be an equal threat from the other direction if restrictions are totally abandoned: although CSOs may be able to engage in advocacy work in this scenario, there is a real danger that the legitimacy of that work will be totally undermined by having to operate in a space in which many organisations are nakedly partisan.

Political but not partisan- a delicate balance

This highlights the fact that those wishing to protect and preserve the value of charitable campaigning need to maintain a careful balance between, on the one hand, having sufficient regulation and legislation in place to give the public confidence that organisations are not partisan or driven by political aims, and, on the other hand, ensuring that over-zealous rules do not undermine the ability of charities to speak out and advocate in pursuit of their charitable missions.

This balance is one that is reflected in existing law here in the UK, where there is a distinction between an organisation having a political purpose (which is not allowed under charity law) and an organisation engaging in political activities in order to pursue an acceptable charitable purpose (which is allowed, within certain defined limits). However, this should not make us complacent. In recent years, when charity campaigning has come under relatively heavy fire in the UK, there have been many examples of critics either inadvertently or wilfully ignoring this distinction and conflating “political” with “party political” in order to make a case that charities are acting inappropriately. It is vital that we continue to challenge this misrepresentation.

Grey areas: Thinks tanks as “educational charities”

The other reason we should not be complacent is that history has left us with a broad definition of charitable purpose in the UK. As a result, much like the tax-exempt sector in the US, the UK charity sector contains a wide diversity of organisations with differing and occasionally competing aims. And this applies to political involvement just as much as anything else. Just as some churches in the US want to see the Johnson Amendment repealed, there are charities in the UK who would almost certainly like to see restrictions on political campaigning relaxed because they already skirt the boundaries of being partisan.

I am thinking here particularly of think tanks and others who set themselves up as charities with “educational purposes”, and are able to maintain their charitable status despite clear ideological affiliation with a particular political party on the grounds that they are conducting research and convening events in order to further this educational purpose. Many of these organisations operate at the limits of what constitutes acceptable non-partisan political activity, and as a result they occasionally overstep the mark: there have been multiple cases of think tanks being censured for straying away from impartiality.

The challenge for more mainstream, cause-driven charities who want to defend their ability to engaging in non-partisan campaigning on ‘political’ issues is that they find themselves in a tent with organisations that are constantly testing the boundaries of what is acceptable. The danger is that this damages public trust in the idea of charity, and as a result leads to cynicism and unwillingness to engage. This is unlikely to result the sort of stark downturn in trust that we might see in the US if the Johnson Amendment is repealed, but will still lead to a slow process of erosion of trust over time that we might not notice until it is too late.

What are the principles at stake here?

The other crucial thing about the Johnson Amendment story, to my mind, is that it provides yet another example of the lack of clarity in the minds of policymakers when it comes to many of the fundamental questions about philanthropy and the role of charities.

you are effectively introducing a taxpayer-funded subsidy for political donations. But why is this unacceptable? That is to say, what do you believe the justification for offering tax relief on donations to be, and why do these donations not meet the required criteria? As I have previously argued, many policymakers never offer an explicit rationale for why tax relief on charitable giving is desirable, and if pressed will merely offer a series of post hoc justifications that often do not stack up. But the Johnson Amendment story once again shows the importance of having a principled, reasoned answer to this question.

The origin of the US rule against political purposes – LBJ’s revenge

Similarly if we assume that the distinction between ‘political’ and ‘partisan’, or between ‘political activities’ and ‘political purposes’ is crucial, then we should once again ask why.

Why is it that a charity is prohibited from having a political purpose? In the case of the US, as we have seen, we know precisely when the rule was introduced: 1954, by Lyndon Johnson. However, ‘why’ remains a much more difficult question to answer. The provision was introduced as part of an omnibus bill and there is no record of there having being any debate at the time, so we don’t have evidence of issues of principle being discussed. In fact, it is generally agreed that Johnson’s motivation in putting forward the proposal was to get revenge on a specific conservative non-profit group at the time which had supported a rival candidate for his seat in the US Senate, rather than it having any basis in a principled belief in the need to curb political campaigning by non-profits or religious groups.

The origin of the UK rule against political purposes – Lord Parker’s mistake

The situation in the UK is, if anything, even worse. Here, the provision prohibiting political purposes in charity law can essentially be traced back to a mistake (as I detail in my book Public Good by Private Means). In 1917 there was a court case called Bowman vs Secular Society, which concerned the legacy of a man called Charles Bowman, who wanted to leave some of his estate to the Secular Society (which promoted the idea that religion should be removed from public life and replaced with evidence-based secular beliefs). Now, as is often the case, his next of kin weren’t very happy with this and challenged the legacy in the courts, on the grounds that this society was blasphemous.

The case ended up being heard by the House of Lords. They didn’t uphold the charge of blasphemy, but in the course of giving his opinion, one of the judges – Lord Parker of Waddington – made a series of statements that were to have a long-lasting impact on charity law. In particular, he made the assertion that “a trust for the attainment of political objects has always been held invalid”. But that doesn’t appear to have actually been true at the time. Matthew Harding, who explores this issue in detail in his book “Charity Law and the Liberal State” argues that in fact, “it was far from clear that trusts for political purposes had invariably or even mostly regarded by decision makers as invalid”, and that “the history of Victorian Britain reveals a strong tradition of charities pursuing political purposes of different types, with no suggestion that such purposes were impeded or constrained by charity law.”

It seems as though the judge based his view on a single discussion of the issue in a late 19th century text, which most scholars agree is pretty quirky and doesn’t represent the case law very well. However, despite this, Lord Parker’s assertion stuck, and formed the basis for a large body of case law that has now firmly established the rule prohibiting charities from having political purposes both in the UK and in many other countries around the world whose charity law is based on our own,

The Upshot

Whether you think restrictions on political campaigning by charities are a good thing or a bad thing, one thing seems certain: nobody is quite sure why we actually have those restrictions in the first place. The same holds true for tax relief on donations. And that is why I believe it is important to address some of these fundamental theoretical questions about the role of philanthropy and charities (and have previously argued as much, in my book and elsewhere).

Although for the majority of the time it doesn’t really matter if we don’t have well though-out answers to these questions, the danger is that when something happens to force these issues to the forefront of debate (like the current situation with the Johnson Amendment in the US), we find ourselves unable to offer compelling arguments or evidence and thus end up on the wrong end of damaging policy changes. So now is the time to grapple with these questions.

Rhodri Davies

]]>https://givingthought.org/2017/02/23/closing-space-or-open-season-what-president-trumps-latest-move-means-for-the-future-of-civil-society-campaigning/feed/0C7530-33Athegivingthoughtdonald-trump-smirklyndon_b-_johnson-_waist_length_seated_-_nara_-_518140pulpit-319948dirty moneysuper-paccorrosivesilhouettes-616913tightrope-walkerhundreds-and-thousandsblasphemycharity-law-and-the-liberal-stateTruth Decay: Philanthropy and the battle against misinformation and ‘fake news’https://givingthought.org/2017/01/30/truth-decay-philanthropy-and-the-battle-against-misinformation-and-fake-news/
https://givingthought.org/2017/01/30/truth-decay-philanthropy-and-the-battle-against-misinformation-and-fake-news/#respondMon, 30 Jan 2017 12:41:04 +0000http://givingthought.org/?p=2170]]>Truth Decay: Philanthropy and the battle against misinformation and ‘fake news’]]>https://givingthought.org/2017/01/30/truth-decay-philanthropy-and-the-battle-against-misinformation-and-fake-news/feed/0fake-newsthegivingthoughtGiving in a World Without Work? Automation, Universal Basic Income and the future of philanthropyhttps://givingthought.org/2017/01/11/giving-in-a-world-without-work-automation-universal-basic-income-and-the-future-of-philanthropy/
https://givingthought.org/2017/01/11/giving-in-a-world-without-work-automation-universal-basic-income-and-the-future-of-philanthropy/#respondWed, 11 Jan 2017 12:37:39 +0000http://givingthought.org/?p=2152]]>Two issues that seem set to be big topics of debate in 2017 are the impact of automation on the future of work and the question of whether some form of Universal Basic Income (UBI) payment would be the best way to meet the future welfare needs of society. These issues are separate, but clearly linked: the immediate question when one posits a future in which the majority of jobs are far more effectively and cheaply done by machines is how the people who used to do those jobs are now supposed to afford to live, which is where UBI comes in as one possible solution.

This is clearly a major technological trend with far-reaching implications for society. But our focus here is on what it means for philanthropy and the work of charities. As such, I think there are five key possibilities to consider.

1)Automation will create new resources that can be used for traditional philanthropy

The internet of things combined with a blockchain-based infrastructure will result in a massive increase in the volume of automated or AI-controlled transactions. Some of the proceeds from these transactions could be used to generate money for charity, a bit like current electronic rounding schemes or ATM giving, but on a far bigger scale (For more on this see my previous blog on “Philanthropy, the blockchain and the Internet of Things”). If even a tiny fraction of IoT transactions were used to generate philanthropic money, this could still result in a significant new source of income for charities.

There is still a question about how the recipients of these micro-donations would be chosen. At first, it is almost certain that smart object would still be owned in a traditional sense, so the most likely scenario is that the human owners would be able to stipulate the recipient charities. However, this may change in the future, as we shall see.

2)Automation will create new resources that can be used for philanthropy by AIs themselves

As AI becomes more sophisticated and the amount of data on social needs and the impact of charitable organisations increases, we may choose to outsource decisions about how best to allocate our philanthropic resources to AI (much like we will cede control in many other areas of our lives). This may result in an entirely new model of ‘algorithmic philanthropy’, as we have explored in previous blog posts (e.g. this one) and reports.

3)Levels of monetary giving will change dramatically

If the future sees many jobs – and even entire industries – being replaced by artificial intelligences and smart machines, then it may no longer be possible for those who lose out simply to “get a different job”. The question then, in a world primarily predicated on capitalism and the notion of earned income, is how do those people survive?

This is where the idea of Universal Basic Income comes in. In this context, UBI is mooted as a mechanism by which governments could ensure the welfare needs of their citizens in a future where the majority of labour is automated and thus most people do not have traditional jobs (see e.g. this article from the FT for more on this idea).

The pertinent question for us is what this might mean for charitable giving. And the answer will depend very largely on the actual design and implementation of the UBI system. For example, if UBI is merely introduced to a system in which people have the ability to earn their own wealth relatively easily, then it would seem unlikely to make a huge difference, as many people will still have disposable wealth.

However, let’s consider for a moment the more radical scenario in which automation has exceeded a tipping point and the majority of citizens are reliant on some form of UBI for their income, with little or no means to earn their own money in addition. In this scenario there are at least three possibilities;

i) Charitable giving dramatically declines, or even disappears. This could happen either if UBI is set at such a level that it caters for people’s basic needs but does not leave them with any disposable assets, or if the payments are made in such a way that there is little discretion in how to spend them (i.e. they are required to be spent on specific welfare items and services).

ii) Charitable giving increases.This could happen if there was a sufficiently generous UBI with no restrictions on how it was spent. Given that people would have more time to focus on social action (see point 4 below) and the money would be unearned, it is possible that people’s willingness to give it away would be greater than it is currently and hence the overall level of giving might increase.

iii) Charitable giving is factored into the system of UBI. If there were a situation closer to i) than ii), it is still possible that charitable giving could continue to exist if it were deliberately built into the design of the system. This might be by ensuring that at least a certain portion of the UBI is free to be spent however an individual chooses, on the assumption that maintaining a sense of personal agency is important and at least some people will choose to give it away for the benefit of other. Or it might be by directly stipulating that a certain portion of the UBI has to go to charity but allowing individuals to retain discretion over the choice of beneficiary. This may seem slightly far-fetched, but in fact is very similar to the model of “percentage philanthropy” that has been in place in some countries (primarily former Eastern bloc ones) for a number of years.

4)There will be an increase in volunteering and a change in its nature

Apart from providing a solution to the problem of welfare provision in a hypothetical future scenario where people have been replaced by intelligent machines, UBI is argued to bring other potential benefits that can be used to make the case for its introduction right now. One of these is that it could free people up to focus on pursuits other than work, and thereby unleash an explosion in creativity and learning, as people have more time to dedicate to artistic and academic pursuits. This is essentially the rationale behind the case for UBI made by the RSA in its report “Creative citizen, creative state: The principled and pragmatic case for a Universal Basic Income” back in 2015.

The same argument surely applies to social action. Assuming that UBI has not led to the end of all social problems (see point 5 below), then there will still be issues for charities and their supporters to address. And those supporters will now find themselves with far more time at their disposal to focus on these challenges if they wish. (They may at the same time have far fewer monetary resources, as outlined above).

This means that volunteering could increase dramatically. And the nature of the volunteer pool would also change significantly, because volunteering would no longer be something that people had to fit around work commitments or wait until retirement to get fully involved in. This could represent a paradigm shift for the idea of charity, as we move from a model where expert organisations look to fundraise from supporters or involve them in pre-determined, discrete volunteer opportunities to a model in which supporters are involved in directing and delivering far more substantive, long-term voluntary services and campaigns.

5)There will be a decrease in poverty and inequality-related social issues

Another argument put forward in favour of UBI is that it could prove more effective than current systems of means-tested welfare at reducing poverty and inequality. Let’s assume for a moment that this is true in a fairly extreme form, and that an automated future in which UBI has been implemented is one in which there is little or no poverty or inequality. The question is: would there still be any work left for charities and philanthropists to do?

Addressing poverty is the quintessential charitable purpose. It also underpins many other related purposes, because poverty is a contributing factor to so many of them. Likewise the modern focus on addressing income inequality is driven partly by the fact that it can be identified as a root cause of so many other issues. So if we ‘solved’ poverty and inequality, would that also solve all other problems and thereby make charity redundant?

The answer is almost certainly no. For a start, while it is true that many of the problems addressed by the work of charities can be traced back to the root causes of poverty and inequality, it is certainly not true of all of them. What about wildlife conservation, preserving heritage, promoting the arts, or treating genetic diseases? It seems like these would still require attention in an equal society with no poverty.

It is worth noting that the question of whether “solving” poverty would mean the end of charity has been considered in practical terms before. At the founding of the welfare state in the UK in the late 1940s, there was much debate about what this might mean for the role of philanthropy and voluntary provision (as there was a widespread assumption that government welfare provision would make previous voluntary efforts in many areas obsolete).

William Beveridge

William Beveridge, one of the key intellectual architects of the welfare state, even published an entire book on this question (1948’s Voluntary Action), in which he concluded that whilst many traditional functions of the voluntary sector might be taken over by the machinery of state-provided welfare, there would be many remaining needs that should be addressed through voluntary action. For Beveridge, this included health needs such as chronic illness and disability, social needs such as ageing or offender rehabilitation, and also leisure pursuits such as sports and the arts.

Whilst we may not agree with the exact needs that Beveridge identified as remaining in a system of state welfare provision, the same basic argument applies. There are problems and activities whose solution or promotion is currently delivered primarily through philanthropic means, and one would assume that this would continue to be the case even if everyone were in receipt of a Universal Basic Income.

Artificial intelligence is not going to replace most of our jobs tomorrow, or even next year (probably…). Likewise, it doesn’t seem likely that governments across the world are suddenly going to start introducing Universal Basic Income for their citizens. However, it is clear that the use of AI is increasing at an accelerating rate, and we are also seeing a growing number of people advocating the idea of UBI as a long-term solution to the challenges that automation poses for the future of world (including influential tech entrepreneur Elon Musk and AI expert Andrew Ng, who was the key architect of Google’s deep learning algorithm).

We have also begun to see the launch of fairly large-scale pilots of UBI (including the recently-announced one in Finland). Given how fundamentally the interplay of these two developments could reshape our society and how profound their impact on philanthropy might be, it seems well worth thinking through some of the implications ahead of time.